Manning v. State Of Nevada

Filing 4

ORDER that the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failing to pay the filing fee. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/30/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 KENNETH DUANE MANNING, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 STATE OF NEVADA, 14 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 2:12-cv-0174-JCM-CWH ORDER 15 16 This is a civil rights action submitted by the plaintiff. However, under 28 U.S.C. § 17 1915(g), Manning has been banned from filing actions in forma pauperis unless he can show he is in 18 imminent danger of serious physical injury. Manning was advised to amend his complaint, if he 19 could, to show such imminent harm. The original complaint alleged denial of his First Amendment 20 right to marry someone of the same sex or to be allowed to have sexual relations in private. The 21 amended complaint, filed in response to the court’s order denying in forma pauperis appears to 22 abandon his First Amendment claim and instead alleges an equal protection violation on the basis 23 that an employee of the State of Nevada has a “thing for Ms. Mouton” and is therefore retaliating 24 against plaintiff and “has put [him] in imminent danger of serious physical injury.” The complaint 25 alleges nothing else except that the employee “is not doing his job like a professional.” 26 1 The bald allegations are insufficient to state a claim and fail also to support the 2 allegation of imminent harm. Thus, the complaint and this action shall be dismissed without 3 prejudice. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the amended complaint is DISMISSED 5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failing to pay the filing fee. The clerk shall enter judgment 6 accordingly. 7 Dated this ______ day of April, 2012. April 30, 2012. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?